Comments on: 281

By: Hegel (Simple)

Hegel (Simple) — Thu, 24 Sep 2026 10:59:49 +0000

§ 281: Majesty and Succession

The will without a ground and natural existence through birth form a unity. That is the majesty of the monarch. Arbitrary will cannot touch it. In it lies the unity of the state.

Why hereditary succession?

It prevents parties from fighting over the throne. That is correct, but it is only a consequence. Some justify succession only by the welfare of the people. In doing so, they drag majesty down into the back and forth of reasons. And we know what consequences people have already drawn from the welfare of the people.

Elective monarchy:

It seems natural: The people choose who should lead their affairs. But that is shallow thinking. Here the opinion of the many counts as the first thing. Elective monarchy is the worst of institutions. The man who wins the election must bind himself to the voters. The power of the state becomes the prey of single wills. This leads to inner breakdown and outer collapse.

Why do millions obey?

Monarchs often stand out neither in strength nor in mind. And yet millions let them rule. People are not so stupid that this would happen against their interest. It is the inner power of the Idea.

A conquered people:

It is different with a conquered people. The constitution does not bind them to the ruler. Napoleon said to envoys from Erfurt: “I am not your prince, I am your master.”

Summary: Majesty is the unity of a will without a ground and natural birth. Hereditary succession secures it. Elective monarchy is the worst institution.

By: Karl Marx

Karl Marx — Wed, 10 May 1843 16:26:54 +0000

The two moments are: the contingency of the will, arbitrariness, and the contingency of nature, birth — thus His Majesty Contingency. Contingency is thus the actual unity of the state.

In what way an »inner and outer immediacy« is supposed to be taken away from collision etc. is, on Hegel’s part, an incomprehensible assertion, since it is precisely this that is surrendered.

What Hegel asserts of the elective monarchy holds in even higher degree of the hereditary monarch:

»For the constitution becomes, in an elective monarchy, through the nature of the relation whereby the particular will is made into the final deciding factor, an electoral capitulation« etc. etc. »a surrender of the power of the state to the discretion of the particular will, from which the transformation of the particular powers of the state into private property« etc. »results.«

By: Eduard Gans (Additions)

Eduard Gans (Additions) — Wed, 29 May 1833 14:18:48 +0000

If one wants to grasp the idea of the monarch, one cannot content oneself with saying that God instituted kings, for God has made everything, even the worst. Nor does one get very far from the standpoint of utility either, since disadvantages can always be pointed out again and again. It helps just as little to regard the monarch as positive right. That I have property is necessary, but this particular possession is contingent; and the right that some one person must stand at the head appears in just the same way, when one considers it as abstract and positive right. But this right is present as a felt need and as a need of the matter in and for itself. Monarchs are not exactly distinguished by bodily strength or by intellect, and yet millions let themselves be ruled by them. Now if one says that human beings let themselves be governed against their interests, purposes, and intentions, this is absurd, for human beings are not that foolish: it is their need, it is the inner power of the idea, which compels them even against their apparent consciousness and maintains them in this relation. If the monarch thus appears as the apex and part of the constitution, then one must say that a conquered people is not, within the constitution, identical with the prince. If an uprising occurs in a province conquered in war, this is something other than a rebellion in a well-organized state. The conquered are not in revolt against their prince; they commit no crime against the state, for they stand with their lord not in the connection of the idea, not in the inner necessity of the constitution—there is only a contract present, no bond of the state. “Je ne suis pas votre prince, je suis votre maître,” Napoleon replied to the deputies at Erfurt.